Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36757646›Full record

ArticleObesity surgery2023

Follow-Up, Safety, and Satisfaction with Tele-bariatric Follow-Up Implemented During the COVID-19 French Lockdown: a 2-Year Follow-Up Study.

Ahmed Daouadji-Ghazouani, Judith Aron-Wisnewsky, Adriana Torcivia, Marc Irigoin-Guichandut, Christine Poitou, Pauline Faucher, Cécile Ciangura, Pierre Bel Lassen, Karine Clément, Jean-Christophe Vaillant and 2 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Obesity surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Precision Bariatric/Metabolic Medicine and Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Ahmed Daouadji-GhazouaniSorbonne Université, Department of Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, AP-HP, Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital, 47-83 Boulevard de L'Hôpital, 75013, Paris, France.
Judith Aron-WisnewskySorbonne Université, Department of Nutrition, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, AP-HP, Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital, 47-83 Boulevard de L'Hôpital, 75013, Paris, France.
Adriana TorciviaSorbonne Université, Department of Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, AP-HP, Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital, 47-83 Boulevard de L'Hôpital, 75013, Paris, France.
Marc Irigoin-GuichandutSorbonne Université, Department of Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, AP-HP, Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital, 47-83 Boulevard de L'Hôpital, 75013, Paris, France.
Christine PoitouSorbonne Université, Department of Nutrition, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, AP-HP, Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital, 47-83 Boulevard de L'Hôpital, 75013, Paris, France.
Pauline FaucherSorbonne Université, Department of Nutrition, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, AP-HP, Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital, 47-83 Boulevard de L'Hôpital, 75013, Paris, France.
Cécile CianguraSorbonne Université, Department of Nutrition, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, AP-HP, Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital, 47-83 Boulevard de L'Hôpital, 75013, Paris, France.
Pierre Bel LassenSorbonne Université, Department of Nutrition, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, AP-HP, Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital, 47-83 Boulevard de L'Hôpital, 75013, Paris, France.
Karine ClémentSorbonne Université, Department of Nutrition, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, AP-HP, Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital, 47-83 Boulevard de L'Hôpital, 75013, Paris, France.
Jean-Christophe VaillantSorbonne Université, Department of Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, AP-HP, Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital, 47-83 Boulevard de L'Hôpital, 75013, Paris, France.
Jean-Michel OppertSorbonne Université, Department of Nutrition, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, AP-HP, Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital, 47-83 Boulevard de L'Hôpital, 75013, Paris, France.
Laurent GenserSorbonne Université, Department of Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, AP-HP, Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital, 47-83 Boulevard de L'Hôpital, 75013, Paris, France. laurent.genser@aphp.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7635-7813

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic was initially responsible for a global restricted access to healthcare resources including the follow-up of at-risk populations such as bariatric patients. We substituted face-to-face bariatric follow-up outpatient clinics (FTFC) with teleclinics (TC) during the lockdown. MATERIAL AND

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed data collected on all patients scheduled for TC during the French lockdown period (March 15 to May 15, 2020) (N = 87). Our aims were to present the patients' outcomes at one and 2 years post-TC implementation and describe patient/practitioner satisfaction.

resultsSeven (8%) patients required FTFC, and 80 (92%) underwent TC (study population) for preoperative bariatric assessment (N = 3) and postoperative follow-up (N = 77) after 23.6 ± 29 months following surgery. TC was performed with video and audio (N = 46; 57.5%) or audio alone when video was impossible (N = 34; 42.5%). Sixteen (20%) patients presented at least one complication identified at the first TC and were managed accordingly. There were no readmissions at 30/90 days post-TC. At 1-year after the first TC, overall follow-up rate was 94.9% (TC: 73% vs FTFC: 27%). Patients surveyed on the main advantages of TC over FTFC (N = 46) cited: saving time (97.8%) at a mean 3.9 ± 6.4 h saved per TC, work-advantages (94.3%), and comparable relevance of TC (84.8%). At 2 years post-TC implementation, follow-up rate was 93.5% and satisfaction rate was 80%, with 33% of patients preferring to return to FTFC.

conclusionsTC is a satisfactory substitute for FTFC, enabling continued bariatric follow-up during and beyond the pandemic setting without compromising patient safety. However, the modest satisfaction outcomes at 2 years highlight a need to discuss follow-up preferences in order to achieve optimal outcomes.

Indexed as

BariatricsCOVID-19Obesity, MorbidTelemedicineCommunicable Disease ControlFollow-Up StudiesHumansPandemicsPersonal SatisfactionRetrospective StudiesBariatricCOVID-19Follow-upImplementationSars-CoV2TeleclinicTeleconsultationsTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID36757646
PMCPMC9910261

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.